RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion

["Stephen White" <swhite@SeeBeyond.com>]

It is not clear to me which specification the licensing questions should be applied. Obviously the BPEL4WS 1.1 that was input into the technical committee will be subject to the license requirements of the 5 authoring companies (which need to be clarified). But what of the output specification that is due in a year (WSBPEL 1.0). Who are the authoring companies for that specification? Would it be OASIS itself? The original 5 companies only? Or all the companies that contribute to the development of the new specification? 

Note: I tried to ask this question during the call, but was knocked out of the queue.

-Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Ross-Talbot [mailto:steve@enigmatec.net]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 12:35 PM
To: Ben Bloch
Cc: Cummins, Fred A; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion

All:

I re-iterate what I said in a previous email. Until the question is
asked we do not know that we have a problem.
So I suggest in the strongest possible terms that the question is asked
and then we can discuss what to do about the answer.
For those that havne not followed the debate the question is simple.

****
The co-chairs should ask the authors of BPELV1.1 "Are they prepared to
remove all royalty and license restrictions for BPELV1.1?"
****

It's simple it's to the point and until it is asked all other issues
related to this are simply supposition. Let us establish the
facts first and then deal with them.

Cheers

Steve T


On Monday, May 19, 2003, at 08:23  pm, Ben Bloch wrote:

> This is good advice but, although the TC is not a legal forum, it can
> nonetheless faciliate the communication between TC members and the
> original
> submitters, which makes it easier/more efficient for everyone,
> including I
> would think the submitters themselves.
>
> So the motion should be passed and, hopefully, the vendors will comply
> by
> the F2F. Obviously we can't make them but we can request their
> positions,
> whatever they are, be clarified at this time, to then give the TC a
> basis
> for any further discussion and actions, if any.  Until these licenses
> - or
> declared lack thereof - are made available to the TC or to the web (eg
> Microsoft's WS-Security license
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/docs/wss_license.asp) , however,
> any
> further discussions on this topic could, in my opinion, be quite
> unproductive.
>
>
> Ben
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>
> To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Cc: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 2:28 PM
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
>
>
>> I suggest that those who have a real concern about the
>> IP rights and licensing pursue this with their attorneys
>> rather than create a special committee and more discussion.
>> I had a discussion with an attorney, and I believe there
>> are legitimate concerns.
>>
>> Here is my understanding (not a legal opinion):
>>
>> The specification has been submitted for use as is.  There
>> does not appear to be a waiver of copyright for use of
>> portions of the specification in a new specification to be
>> developed by the technical committee.
>>
>> The royalty free licenses are for patents that would apply
>> to implementations of the proposed specification, not a
>> specification that might evolve from this specification.
>> Consequently, there is not necessarily any free license for
>> patents relevant to the final specification.
>>
>> The OASIS policy seems to be quite liberal and does not
>> ensure that specifications adopted by OASIS are free of
>> IP rights of those who contribute, only that there is
>> notice of relevant IP of participating companies that individual
>> representatives are aware of.  Of course, there is always
>> the possiblity that a specification will infringe on the IP
>> rights of non-participants.
>>
>> Fred Cummins
>> EDS
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rand Anderson [mailto:randerson@macgregor.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:55 AM
>>> To: 'Howard N Smith'; steve@enigmatec.net
>>> Cc: 'Sally St. Amand'; donald.steiner@webv2.com;
>>> 'wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org'
>>> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
>>>
>>>
>>> Howard, Steve,
>>> My suggestion:
>>> 1. Vote in favor of the revised motion (as stated by Donald,
>>> below) at this
>>> Wed's conf call
>>> 2. Attend the BoF at the F2F on May 28/29 to help figure out
>>> what this is
>>> all about
>>>
>>> Or, suggest a revision to the revised motion.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> Rand
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Howard N Smith [mailto:howard.smith@ontology.org]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:37 AM
>>> To: steve@enigmatec.net
>>> Cc: Rand Anderson; 'Sally St. Amand'; donald.steiner@webv2.com
>>> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
>>>
>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> What is all this about? Either the spec is royalty free or it is not.
>>> All BPMI.org specs are royalty free, including BPML which is
>>> already ahead
>>> of WSBPEL in any case in terms of fitness for purpose,
>>> functionality etc.
>>>
>>> Howard
>>>
>>> At 14:24 19/05/2003 +0100, Steve Ross-Talbot wrote:
>>>> All:
>>>>
>>>> Generally I support the changes but only if the most
>>> pressing question
>>>> is asked first. It really is a two stage process. We need to
>>> know if the
>>>> license and royalty restrictions that may be in place can be
>>> removed. If
>>>> they cannot then the other things follow. But the simple
>>> question is to
>>>> ask for license and royalty free access.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Steve T
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Rand Anderson [mailto:randerson@macgregor.com]
>>>> Sent: 19 May 2003 14:07
>>>> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>> Cc: 'Sally St. Amand'; 'donald.steiner@webv2.com'
>>>> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1 on this revised motion - clean and clear, it is appropriately
>>>> more
>>>> general in scope. The BoF can then refine and recommend the
>>> appropriate
>>>> objectives related to licensing for the TC, based on initial
>>> input from
>>>> those interested.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't say that working out licensing issues is part of
>>> the purpose
>>>> of this TC, but they (the issues) certainly are relevant to
>>> the traction
>>>> dimension of the protocol as a proposed standard. I personally would
>>>> like to
>>>> *start* by just understanding how the licensing terms will affect
>>>> implementers and adopters, before jumping into trying to
>>> influence the
>>>> terms themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Rand
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Donald Steiner [mailto:donald.steiner@webv2.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 5:13 PM
>>>> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>> Cc: 'Sally St. Amand'
>>>> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This seems a bit overly complicated to me (understandably
>>> so, as it was
>>>> dynamically pieced together from the various suggestions during the
>>>> course of the call this morning).
>>>>
>>>> I would propose the following rather broad remit, and leave
>>> it up to the
>>>> BoF to follow through on other suggestions (e.g. proposing
>>> to drop all
>>>> licensing restrictions, which IMHO would be quite unusual).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The TC recommends creation of a Birds of a Feather group (BoF) to
>>>> examine licensing issues related to the BPEL4WS v1.1 specification
>>>> as
>>>> submitted at the first meeting and implementations thereof. To aid
>>>> in
>>>> this process:
>>>>
>>>> 1) TC chairs will request details of the current licensing terms
>>>> from
>>>> the 5 original submitting members, which should be made
>>> available to the
>>>> TC membership before the next face-to-face meeting.
>>>> 2) The BoF shall be open to the TC membership.
>>>> 3) The BoF shall consider comments from the TC membership,
>>> which shall
>>>> be submitted by email or in person.
>>>> 4) When practical and possible, the legal representatives of the
>>>> submitting members should be made available to discuss the
>>> observations
>>>> and/or recommendations of the BoF.
>>>> 5) The BoF group shall meet at the next face-to-face meeting."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I would like to see the original submitters
>>> publish a joint
>>>> licensing agreement that is automatically offered to anybody
>>> using the
>>>> specs. (Note, this does not say what the details of said license
>>>> agreement would be, it would just make things un-bureaucratic and
>>>> transparent as far as the formalities are concerned.)
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> - Donald
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>> From: Sally St. Amand [mailto:sallystamand@yahoo.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 11:35 AM
>>>> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>> Subject: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the conference call scheduled for 5/21 a MOTION ON LICENSING be
>>>> introduced. The Motion is
>>>>
>>>> The TC Co-Chairs will ask each of the 5 companies licensing the BPEL
>>>> v1.1 specifications 1) if they are willing to remove the licensing
>>>> restrictions, and 2) for a contact who can represent the company in
>>>> discussions with the TC on this issue. A Birds of a Feather
>>> (BoF) group
>>>> be formed from the member of the TC Committee to obtain
>>> information and
>>>> get clarification from the 5 companies who are licensing the
>>> BPEL v1.1
>>>> specification. The initial information to include a draft version of
>>>> each of the 5 companies licensing agreements.
>>>> The BoF group to make available to all TC members each and
>>> all versions
>>>> of the licensing agreements for the BPEL v1.1 specification.
>>> In addition
>>>> the BoF group will serve as the focal point for receiving
>>> questions on
>>>> the issue of licensing and getting clarification, for creating
>>>> mechanisms to publicize the issue to TC members and the
>>> public at-large,
>>>> and for specifying the need for legal assistance if
>>> warranted. The BoF
>>>> group will take comments and questions by email, and will meet at
>>>> the
>>>> face-to-face.
>>>> *************************************************************
>>> ***********
>>>> *******
>>>> Send your revisions and comments to at least me, Diane or John. A
>>>> consensus motion will be on the agenda for the conference call.
>>>> Sally
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>>> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
>>>> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal
>>> privilege. If
>>>> you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or
>>> disclose its
>>>> content but  delete the email and contact the sender
>>> immediately. Whilst
>>>> we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not
>>> liable for
>>>> any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their
>>> own antivirus
>>>> software.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal
>>> privilege. If you
>>> are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or
>>> disclose its content
>>> but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately.
>>> Whilst we run
>>> antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable
>>> for any loss or
>>> damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus software.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> New Book - Business Process Management: The Third Wave
>>> www.bpm3.com
>>>
>>> Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org
>>> cell             +44 7711 594 494 (worldwide)
>>> home office +44 20 8660 1963
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If
> you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose
> its content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately.
> Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not
> liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their
> own antivirus software.
>

This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose its content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately. Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus software.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org